You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@camel.apache.org by Babak Vahdat <ba...@swissonline.ch> on 2012/08/14 17:16:37 UTC
Is this routing behaviour as expected?
Hi
I'm still a bit confused regarding a question by another thread and would
like to ask you about the point I'm missing here.
The following test passes (e.g. using the trunk code or 2.10.0 release)
which I can follow and understand:
public class TwoRoutesTest extends CamelTestSupport {
@Test
public void test1() throws Exception {
getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("another
body");
getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("another
body");
template.sendBody("direct:start", "body");
assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
}
@Override
protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
return new RouteBuilder() {
@Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
from("direct:process").process(new Processor() {
@Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception
{
Object body = exchange.getIn().getBody();
exchange.getIn().setBody("another " + body);
}
}).to("mock:result2");
}
};
}
}
Now consider the following test which is similar to the previous one but
this one would fail:
public class TwoRoutes2Test extends CamelTestSupport {
@Test
public void test2() throws Exception {
getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("a", "b",
"c"); // changing to "a,b,c" will make the test to pass
getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("a", "b",
"c");
template.sendBody("direct:start", "a,b,c");
assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
}
@Override
protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
return new RouteBuilder() {
@Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
from("direct:process").split(body()).to("mock:result2");
}
};
}
}
That's in contrast to the first test by the second test the outcome of the
second route (InOut) is not taken into the account by the direct producer
(...to("direct:producer")...) which to my understanding should have been set
as the body of the Out Message of the current Exchange by the first route,
that's in consistence with the first test.
Is this behaviour "worked as designed"? To me this's a bug or let's say it's
a "not consistent". Does this behaviour have anything to do with the UoW
stuff.
Thanks in advance for any advice
Babak
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Is-this-routing-behaviour-as-expected-tp5717331.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Is this routing behaviour as expected?
Posted by Babak Vahdat <ba...@swissonline.ch>.
For other users who maybe interested it's documented here:
http://camel.apache.org/splitter.html#Splitter-WhattheSplitterreturns
And the corresponding JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-2682
Babak
Am 14.08.12 20:57 schrieb "Babak Vahdat" unter
<ba...@swissonline.ch>:
>
>Am 14.08.12 19:45 schrieb "Raul Kripalani" unter <ra...@fusesource.com>:
>
>>Yes, it is working as expected.
>>
>>If you don't set a custom Aggregation Strategy on the Splitter, as of
>>Camel
>>2.3, it will return the original body by default.
>
>Thanks for the clarification, which I missed by the Splitter documentation
>of Wiki.
>
>Babak
>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>*Raúl Kripalani*
>>*Principal Consultant | FuseSource Corp.
>>raul@fusesource.com | fusesource.com <http://www.fusesource.com/>
>>skype: raul.fuse | twitter: @raulvk <http://twitter.com/raulvk>,
>>@fusenews<http://twitter.com/fusenews>
>>*
>>blog: F3 - Flashes From the
>>Field<http://blog.raulkr.net/?utm_source=fusesourceemail&utm_medium=email
>>&
>>utm_campaign=fusesourcemail>
>> | aboutme: http://about.me/raulkripalani
>>
>><http://twitter.com/fusenews>
>>
>>On 14 August 2012 16:16, Babak Vahdat <ba...@swissonline.ch>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'm still a bit confused regarding a question by another thread and
>>>would
>>> like to ask you about the point I'm missing here.
>>>
>>> The following test passes (e.g. using the trunk code or 2.10.0 release)
>>> which I can follow and understand:
>>>
>>> public class TwoRoutesTest extends CamelTestSupport {
>>>
>>> @Test
>>> public void test1() throws Exception {
>>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("another
>>> body");
>>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("another
>>> body");
>>>
>>> template.sendBody("direct:start", "body");
>>>
>>> assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
>>> }
>>>
>>> @Override
>>> protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
>>> return new RouteBuilder() {
>>> @Override
>>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>>
>>> from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
>>>
>>> from("direct:process").process(new Processor() {
>>> @Override
>>> public void process(Exchange exchange) throws
>>>Exception
>>> {
>>> Object body = exchange.getIn().getBody();
>>> exchange.getIn().setBody("another " + body);
>>> }
>>> }).to("mock:result2");
>>> }
>>> };
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Now consider the following test which is similar to the previous one
>>>but
>>> this one would fail:
>>>
>>> public class TwoRoutes2Test extends CamelTestSupport {
>>>
>>> @Test
>>> public void test2() throws Exception {
>>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("a", "b",
>>> "c"); // changing to "a,b,c" will make the test to pass
>>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("a",
>>>"b",
>>> "c");
>>>
>>> template.sendBody("direct:start", "a,b,c");
>>>
>>> assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
>>> }
>>>
>>> @Override
>>> protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
>>> return new RouteBuilder() {
>>> @Override
>>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>>
>>> from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
>>>
>>>
>>>from("direct:process").split(body()).to("mock:result2");
>>> }
>>> };
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> That's in contrast to the first test by the second test the outcome of
>>>the
>>> second route (InOut) is not taken into the account by the direct
>>>producer
>>> (...to("direct:producer")...) which to my understanding should have
>>>been
>>> set
>>> as the body of the Out Message of the current Exchange by the first
>>>route,
>>> that's in consistence with the first test.
>>>
>>> Is this behaviour "worked as designed"? To me this's a bug or let's say
>>> it's
>>> a "not consistent". Does this behaviour have anything to do with the
>>>UoW
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for any advice
>>> Babak
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>
>>>http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Is-this-routing-behaviour-as-expected-
>>>t
>>>p5717331.html
>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>
>
Re: Is this routing behaviour as expected?
Posted by Babak Vahdat <ba...@swissonline.ch>.
Am 14.08.12 19:45 schrieb "Raul Kripalani" unter <ra...@fusesource.com>:
>Yes, it is working as expected.
>
>If you don't set a custom Aggregation Strategy on the Splitter, as of
>Camel
>2.3, it will return the original body by default.
Thanks for the clarification, which I missed by the Splitter documentation
of Wiki.
Babak
>
>Regards,
>
>*Raúl Kripalani*
>*Principal Consultant | FuseSource Corp.
>raul@fusesource.com | fusesource.com <http://www.fusesource.com/>
>skype: raul.fuse | twitter: @raulvk <http://twitter.com/raulvk>,
>@fusenews<http://twitter.com/fusenews>
>*
>blog: F3 - Flashes From the
>Field<http://blog.raulkr.net/?utm_source=fusesourceemail&utm_medium=email&
>utm_campaign=fusesourcemail>
> | aboutme: http://about.me/raulkripalani
>
><http://twitter.com/fusenews>
>
>On 14 August 2012 16:16, Babak Vahdat <ba...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm still a bit confused regarding a question by another thread and
>>would
>> like to ask you about the point I'm missing here.
>>
>> The following test passes (e.g. using the trunk code or 2.10.0 release)
>> which I can follow and understand:
>>
>> public class TwoRoutesTest extends CamelTestSupport {
>>
>> @Test
>> public void test1() throws Exception {
>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("another
>> body");
>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("another
>> body");
>>
>> template.sendBody("direct:start", "body");
>>
>> assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
>> }
>>
>> @Override
>> protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
>> return new RouteBuilder() {
>> @Override
>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>
>> from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
>>
>> from("direct:process").process(new Processor() {
>> @Override
>> public void process(Exchange exchange) throws
>>Exception
>> {
>> Object body = exchange.getIn().getBody();
>> exchange.getIn().setBody("another " + body);
>> }
>> }).to("mock:result2");
>> }
>> };
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Now consider the following test which is similar to the previous one but
>> this one would fail:
>>
>> public class TwoRoutes2Test extends CamelTestSupport {
>>
>> @Test
>> public void test2() throws Exception {
>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("a", "b",
>> "c"); // changing to "a,b,c" will make the test to pass
>> getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("a", "b",
>> "c");
>>
>> template.sendBody("direct:start", "a,b,c");
>>
>> assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
>> }
>>
>> @Override
>> protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
>> return new RouteBuilder() {
>> @Override
>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>
>> from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
>>
>> from("direct:process").split(body()).to("mock:result2");
>> }
>> };
>> }
>> }
>>
>> That's in contrast to the first test by the second test the outcome of
>>the
>> second route (InOut) is not taken into the account by the direct
>>producer
>> (...to("direct:producer")...) which to my understanding should have been
>> set
>> as the body of the Out Message of the current Exchange by the first
>>route,
>> that's in consistence with the first test.
>>
>> Is this behaviour "worked as designed"? To me this's a bug or let's say
>> it's
>> a "not consistent". Does this behaviour have anything to do with the UoW
>> stuff.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any advice
>> Babak
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
>>http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Is-this-routing-behaviour-as-expected-t
>>p5717331.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
Re: Is this routing behaviour as expected?
Posted by Raul Kripalani <ra...@fusesource.com>.
Yes, it is working as expected.
If you don't set a custom Aggregation Strategy on the Splitter, as of Camel
2.3, it will return the original body by default.
Regards,
*Raúl Kripalani*
*Principal Consultant | FuseSource Corp.
raul@fusesource.com | fusesource.com <http://www.fusesource.com/>
skype: raul.fuse | twitter: @raulvk <http://twitter.com/raulvk>,
@fusenews<http://twitter.com/fusenews>
*
blog: F3 - Flashes From the
Field<http://blog.raulkr.net/?utm_source=fusesourceemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fusesourcemail>
| aboutme: http://about.me/raulkripalani
<http://twitter.com/fusenews>
On 14 August 2012 16:16, Babak Vahdat <ba...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm still a bit confused regarding a question by another thread and would
> like to ask you about the point I'm missing here.
>
> The following test passes (e.g. using the trunk code or 2.10.0 release)
> which I can follow and understand:
>
> public class TwoRoutesTest extends CamelTestSupport {
>
> @Test
> public void test1() throws Exception {
> getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("another
> body");
> getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("another
> body");
>
> template.sendBody("direct:start", "body");
>
> assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
> }
>
> @Override
> protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
> return new RouteBuilder() {
> @Override
> public void configure() throws Exception {
>
> from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
>
> from("direct:process").process(new Processor() {
> @Override
> public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception
> {
> Object body = exchange.getIn().getBody();
> exchange.getIn().setBody("another " + body);
> }
> }).to("mock:result2");
> }
> };
> }
> }
>
> Now consider the following test which is similar to the previous one but
> this one would fail:
>
> public class TwoRoutes2Test extends CamelTestSupport {
>
> @Test
> public void test2() throws Exception {
> getMockEndpoint("mock:result").expectedBodiesReceived("a", "b",
> "c"); // changing to "a,b,c" will make the test to pass
> getMockEndpoint("mock:result2").expectedBodiesReceived("a", "b",
> "c");
>
> template.sendBody("direct:start", "a,b,c");
>
> assertMockEndpointsSatisfied();
> }
>
> @Override
> protected RouteBuilder createRouteBuilder() throws Exception {
> return new RouteBuilder() {
> @Override
> public void configure() throws Exception {
>
> from("direct:start").to("direct:process").to("mock:result");
>
> from("direct:process").split(body()).to("mock:result2");
> }
> };
> }
> }
>
> That's in contrast to the first test by the second test the outcome of the
> second route (InOut) is not taken into the account by the direct producer
> (...to("direct:producer")...) which to my understanding should have been
> set
> as the body of the Out Message of the current Exchange by the first route,
> that's in consistence with the first test.
>
> Is this behaviour "worked as designed"? To me this's a bug or let's say
> it's
> a "not consistent". Does this behaviour have anything to do with the UoW
> stuff.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice
> Babak
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Is-this-routing-behaviour-as-expected-tp5717331.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>